Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .


Book Reviewer
My work here is done.
(and others). Thank you. I shall use that to annoy people in the space-time continuum. And possibly The Times.

(I may be becoming infected by 'Travelers' here, as well as the Cutty Sark Prohibition Edition of their whisky, but I feel that the proximity of the TLAs is advantageous. It will be amusing. It always is.)


Book Reviewer
This doesn't shoe as paywalled on my computer, so hopefully it shares openly here. It's interesting - MM has apparently already admitted that she expected the letter, or some of it to be published at some stage, has she not?

Incidentally, I note that the search function auto-corrects and capitalises the first letter of her name but not Harry's. He really has fallen from grace, hasn't he?


Book Reviewer
Grabbed and shared, for ease:

The Duchess of Sussex has argued that the publication of a “quintessentially” private letter she sent to her father was a “tripled barrelled” invasion of her rights and that any argument to the contrary was “utterly fanciful.”
She has insisted that the letter was a “heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter” published only for commercial gain.
The Duchess, 39, has accused the Mail on Sunday of a “plain and serious" breach “not just of her right to respect for her correspondence, but also her private and family life" by reproducing extracts of the letter in a “sensational" context.
She is suing Associated Newspapers, the owner of the newspaper, for breach of privacy and copyright.
Her claim concerns the publication of five articles, three in the MailOnline and two in the Mail on Sunday, in February 2019.
At a two-day summary judgment hearing, being heard remotely at the High Court, the Duchess’s lawyers have argued there is “no real prospect” of the newspaper winning the case and that it should therefore be resolved without a trial.
Such an application can be brought when one party believes it has such an overwhelmingly strong case that the judge does not need to hear witness evidence.
Associated insisted that the case was “wholly unsuitable” for summary judgment as there was uncertainty about several matters that should be investigated at trial.
It accused the Duchess of making a number of inconsistent statements that she needed to explain.
Antony White QC, for the newspaper group, argued: “There is a very real question as to whether the claimant will be able to establish that she had a reasonable – or any – expectation of privacy”.
He said the Duchess wrote the letter “with a view to it being disclosed publicly at some future point” and that she was “at least in some measure prepared for the information to be disclosed”.
He also referred to the involvement of the Kensington Palace communications team before the letter was sent, saying “no truly private letter from daughter to father” would require such input.
The Duchess’s legal team described the newspaper’s defence as “a case of smoke and mirrors” designed to detract from the facts.
Justin Rushbrook QC, for the Duchess, told the court that at its heart, the case was straightforward, asking who had the right of control over the contents of a private letter.
“Is it the writer of the letter or the editor of the Mail on Sunday?” he asked.
“There can only be one answer to that question and the answer would be the same irrespective of whether or not the writer of the letter is a duchess or any other citizen, and the answer is it is not the editor of the Mail on Sunday.”
Mr Rushbrook said the five-page, 1,250-word letter was not “a vicious or unwarranted attack” on Mr Markle but was rather “a message of peace”.
In court documents, the Duchess said the letter, sent in August 2018 by her accountant via FedEx, was a desperate plea, begging her father to stop talking to the press.
“It is as good an example as one could find of a letter that any person of ordinary sensibilities would not want to be disclosed to third parties, let alone in a mass media publication, in a sensational context and to serve the commercial purposes of the newspaper,” she says.
“The act of writing a personal letter to a close family member, lover or friend inevitably puts the writer in an unguarded and potentially vulnerable position because the words chosen and the way in which the writer chooses to express him or herself are for the recipient and no one else.”
The Duchess argues that the Mail on Sunday knew the letter was private, describing its shift from that position as “cynical and unattractive.”
If the Duchess’s application fails, a full trial will go ahead in the autumn, with the Duchess likely to face her own father, Mr Markle, 76, across the courtroom in a Markle vs Markle clash.
Royal aides will almost certainly be called to testify, including several who worked for the Sussexes.
Associated argued in its defence that at least four current or former members of the Royal Household were likely to have information relevant to the case.
I'm buying up marshmallow stocks as we speak - this is going to be such fun!
Lilibet needs to put an end to this duchess nonsense.
He is a prince, she is nowt.
It's a pity we no longer trial by peers.

I'm not sure Megs would fair well in front of the 16th Earl Havers, the Marquess Colonel de Hulme Fothergill and Lady Ravens Bog du Loo.

Although trial by Piers would be equally good...
It's a pity we no longer trial by peers.

I'm not sure Megs would fair well in front of the 16th Earl Havers, the Marquess Colonel de Hulme Fothergill and Lady Ravens Bog du Loo.

Although trial by Piers would be equally good...
Ah, Piers 'Let bygones be bygones' Morgan. That Piers?

Latest Threads